Opinion
Civil Action AP-23-7
09-13-2023
JEFFREY D. HARMON, Plaintiff v. CITY OF AUBURN, Defendant and AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, Party-in-Interest
Plaintiff's Attorney Kristin Collins, Esq. Preti Flaherty Defendant's Attorney Sally Daggett, Esq. (Auburn) Mark Bower, Esq. Jensen Baird
Plaintiff's Attorney
Kristin Collins, Esq.
Preti Flaherty
Defendant's Attorney
Sally Daggett, Esq. (Auburn)
Mark Bower, Esq.
Jensen Baird
DECISION AND ORDER
Harold Stewart Justice
The matter before the court is plaintiff Jeffrey D. Harmon's appeal of a decision by the City of Auburn Planning Board (the "Board") approving party-in-interest American Development Group, LLC's ("ADG") site plan application for the construction of a multi-family housing project.
Background
On January 6, 2023, ADG submitted an application for site plan approval of Phase 2 of its multi-phase housing development, Stable Ridge Apartments. (R. 7.) Phase 1 was approved in 2022 and involved the construction of five multi-unit apartment buildings along Stable Ridge Drive, a private way located off Court Street in Auburn. (R. 38.) Phase 2 proposes to add an additional five buildings to the development. (Id.)
The Board held a public hearing on the site plan review for the application on February 14,2023. (R. 45-46.) The application was neither approved nor denied. (R. 60.) The Board met again on March 28,2023, and it approved Phase 2 at that time. (R. 1.) A written decision was then issued by the Board on April 3, 2023. (Id.)
Mr. Harmon is a direct abutter to the development. (R. 38.) He spoke in opposition to the development at the public meeting in February (R. 56), and he timely appealed the Board's approval of Phase 2 of the development on April 27, 2023. Mr. Harmon contends that the development violates the front setback requirements of the City's zoning ordinance.
Standard
The court reviews Board decisions for errors of law, abuse of discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Aydelott v. City of Portland, 2010 ME 25, ¶ 10, 990 A.2d 1024. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the municipality. Tarason v. Town of S. Berwick, 2005 ME 30, ¶ 6, 868 A.2d 230. The party seeking to vacate the Board's decision has the burden of persuasion on appeal. Friends of Lamoine v. Town of Lamoine, 2020 ME 70, ¶ 20, 234 A.3d 214.
Discussion
Mr. Harmon argues on appeal that the Board misapplied the zoning ordinance's front setback requirements. When evaluating an ordinance, the court first considers its plain meaning, and if the meaning is clear, the court need not look beyond the words themselves. Fryeburg Trust v. Town of Fryeburg, 2016 ME 174, ¶ 5, 151 A.3d 933. If an ordinance contains undefined or ambiguous terms, the court will construe those terms "reasonably with regard to both the objects sought to be obtained and to the general structure of the ordinance as a whole." Portland Reg'l Chamber of Com. v. City of Portland, 2021 ME 34, ¶ 24, 253 A.3d 586 (quoting Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2015 ME 32, ¶ 13, 113 A.3d 1088). "Although interpretation of an ordinance is a question of law, [the court] accord[s] substantial deference to the Planning Board's characterizations and fact-findings as to what meets ordinance standards." Olson v. Town of Yarmouth, 2018 ME 27, ¶ 11, 179 A.3d 920 (quoting Bizier v. Town of Turner, 2011 ME 116, ¶ 8, 32 A.3d 1048).
The development at issue in this appeal is located within a newly rezoned district, Transect 4.2B ("T-4.2B"), also referred to as the "Traditional Neighborhood" district. According to Section 60-548B.1 of the ordinance, front setbacks in T-4.2B must fall between 5 feet and 25 feet. In its application, ADG represented that the new buildings would have front setbacks ranging from 8.5 feet to 15 feet. (R. 9-10.) Those measurements reflect the location, of the proposed buildings relative to the sidewalks that border the development's parking lots, which are located along the private way of Stable Ridge Drive. (R. 38-40.) The proposed buildings would be set significantly more than 25 feet back from the public way of Court Street. (Id.) The Board approved the site plan with the front setbacks as measured from the private accessways. (R. 1-2, 38.) The narrow question before the court is whether, under the zoning ordinance, it is permissible for front setbacks to be measured from private accessways, or whether they must exclusively be measured from public ways.
The City contends that the zoning ordinance allows front setbacks to be measured from public ways, any accessways, or parking lots, To support its interpretation, the City references the "Building placement and configuration" diagram in Section 60-548B.1 of the zoning ordinance. That diagram depicts a corner lot, with principal and secondary front setbacks marked "A" and "B," respectively. On the diagram, the letters "A" and "B" fall next to arrows pointing at the two public rights-of-way. In the bottom comers of the diagram, below each use of the phrase "public right-of-way," there is an additional text box with red lettering that reads: "Accessways & Parking Lots (TYP)." The City argues that this is a clear indicator that the front setback can be measured either from the public right-of-way or from any accessway or parking lot.
Mr. Harmon disagrees that the text boxes are meant to indicate anything in particular; instead likening them to general titles for the diagrams. He instead points to the diagram's use of the terms "primary street frontage" and "secondary street frontage," arguing that where "street" is defined within the ordinance as a "public way" (R. 128), the diagram's use of the word street supports an interpretation that front setbacks must be measured from public ways, Mr. Harmon further argues that the Board's interpretation of the front setback requirement is not consistent with the purpose of the ordinance.
The court finds that Section 60-548B.1 of the zoning ordinance is unambiguous. The "Accessways & Parking Lots (TYP)" text boxes accompany each use of the term "public right-of-way." (R. 107.) The effect of the inclusion of the text boxes in the diagram is only reasonably susceptible to one interpretation: "Accessways & Parking Lots (TYP)" combines with "public right-of-way," joining it as a point from which to measure front setbacks. Thus, the plain language of the ordinance indicates that front setbacks may be measured from public rights-of-way, accessways, or parking lots. Although Mr. Harmon is correct that the term "street" is also used in the diagram, it is not used in reference to the front setback.
The Board's interpretation is also consistent with the purpose of the ordinance. See Olson, 2018 ME 27, ¶ 16, 179 A.3d 920 (the court's interpretation of an ordinance's plain language "is guided by taking into account the subject matter and purposes of the [ordinance], and the consequences of a particular interpretation"). T-4.2B was rezoned for the following purpose:
The purpose of the rezoning is to provide equitable access to housing in walkable neighborhoods by allowing residential uses at a density driven by the form, lot size
and configuration of the lot with less minimum road frontage required and shared driveways encouraged. . . . The proposed changes allow for infill development, creation of new housing units in existing buildings, new development of housing on vacant land and limited neighborhood scale commercial uses.(R. 75.) The proposed infill development seeks to turn vacant land into 60 new housing units along the shared driveway of Stable Ridge Drive. (R. 38.) The development will be walkable, with interconnected sidewalks that provide access from each building to Court Street. (Id.)
Finally, the consequence of interpreting Section 60-548B.1 to allow front setbacks to be measured from accessways and parking lots is that ADG may make use of the entirety of the lot. This not only conforms with the purpose of the ordinance by allowing the density of the development to be driven by the form and configuration of the lot, it avoids the absurd and illogical result of confining ADG's development to solely the small portion of the lot that borders Court Street. Fryeburg, 2016 ME 174, ¶ 5, 151 A.3d 933 (the court will "construe the terms of an ordinance reasonably ... to avoid absurd or illogical results").
The entry is
The decision of the City of Auburn Planning Board is hereby AFFIRMED.
The Clerk is directed to enter this order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
Date of Entry
2023
April 27
Received 04-27-23: Complaint (SOB) filed. $175.00 filing fee paid
April 28
On 04-28-23: Notice and Briefing Schedule filed. Copies mailed to parties.
May 10
Received 05-10-23: Entries of Appearance of Sally Daggett, Esq. and Mark Bower, Esq. as counsel for the Defendants
May 15
Received 05-15-23: Acceptance of service by Sally Daggett, Esq. on behalf of City of Auburn filed.
June 5
Received 06-05-23: Acceptance of service by David Lourie, Esq. on behalf of PII American Development Group filed.
June 7
Received 06-07-23: Plaintiff's Brief and Record filed
June 9
Received 06-07-23: Entry of Appearance of David Lourie, Esq. as counsel for American Development Group, LLC filed.